Like this:

Related

16 thoughts on “Friday fun”

Just another example of desperation and name calling fron the AGW’s. As for Friday Fun, I have a laugh any day I see these sorts of articles pushed. I just think to myself, “How gullible the masses really are – lol”

3. I addressed the claims McIntyre made regarding resent corrections in temperature data collected in the US on another thread.

4. The claim that there was a deliberate effort to get ride of the MWP is just crap, It is there in the paleoclimate reconstructions of the NH, it’s smaller than people think it should be because it was a regional event principly affecting the Northern Atlantic and Europe.

If you check out the credencials of AGW Denialists you find that they are overwhelmingly old scientists making claims on matters outside of their areas of experties, this is not an uncommon trait amongst elderly scientists; I could name you several off the top of my head, Thomas Gold, Francis Crick, William Shockley who decided they knew better than the experts in another field – and ended up looking like fools.

Do you actually believe any of Beck’s stuff?
Do you know how many fundamental physical and chemical concepts it breaks? Do you care?

Bryan Leyland keeps saying (and I quote):
“If Becks is right then it is curtains for AGW”.

The point is that anyone with the slightest bit of scientific ability can see that Beck isn’t even wrong.

I suggested that instead of taking my word for it that Leyland should ask the opinion of NZCSC science adviser Chris de Freitas about the work of Beck.

de Freitas seems to have gone terribly quiet of late (presumably busy with all that stuff for Sen. Inhofe and also with getting back into publishing peer reviewed scientific papers) and doesn’t seem to have been able to talk to Leyland.

If Leyland doesn’t have enough science to follow the arguments that show Beck is wrong then woe betide anyone who hires him as a consultant. Leyland said months ago he’d put some of my arguments to Beck personally. No response yet.

Andrew W: you make an interesting point about age and denial. I had the idea that Auer was actually one of the youngest members of NZCSC at 65ish. Anyone got hard numbers?

Andrew W, sorry but while you may get comfort from reading your online Global Warming bible at Realclimate, I on the other hand are not religious, i.e a non believer.

Andrew you seem to be in a dellusional state as to Realclimates’ authority on the ‘science’ behind global warming.

Andrew perhaps you could do as Doug suggested and provide a list of names and ages of the ‘deniers’ in the climate industry. I hope you have a lot of time though as it will be one hell of a list.

Doug M, I not saying that anyone on any side is perfect and has all the answers, unlike Andrew W who seems to think Realclimate has.

Isn’t science about mistakes. I mean just look to the IPCC. Whoops, sorry, bad choice of example. I forgot the IPCC don’t do science. lol

And yes Doug I do care about Climate Change. I do care about being conned. I do care when the lazy sheeple, the majority of the public, get brainwashed by all this nonsense and then repeat verbatim what they heard on their nightly news cast and try to cite that as fact to the existence of AGW.

I do believe global climte change is occurring but I don’t belive the mainstream propaganda as to why. This would certainly not be the first time in history that the masses have been led to believe something that is not true.

As for peer reviewed papers, I’m sure one of the articles I posted explained how ‘unscientic’ that process can be at times. Of course there does need to be a review process of sorts to ensure data integrity.

Do *you* think that Beck is right?
If not, what do you make of Bryan Leyland and others continuing to write in support of Beck and ignoring the arguments against Beck?

I say Beck is a total fraud and if people continue to support his work then they are (a) too stupid to notice the gaping holes in the science or (b) they know all about it but are hoping to pull the wool or (c) both a and b.

I have picked Beck b/c it is the easiest example for a non specialist to see that the “science” is wrong.

My point being that if deniers can’t see that Beck is wrong then their assessment of other science is dubious at best. (I don’t just mean that Beck is wrong as in mistaken I mean wrong as in violating many basic ideas of physics and chemistry).

And it follows that if Beck is wrong then much of the other things “published” in Energy and Environment are equally suspect since the reviewers and contributors obviously have no idea about how science works.

So, do *you* think Beck is right?
What does Beck being wrong say about Energy and Environment?

Did you actually read the links I posted? I read your latest, the electric universe is a site I was referred to about a year ago, it was a good chuckle then and now. Did you read your own link? do you think astronomers and nuclear physicist are also part of the great swindle?

I mentioned above that the sites realclimate sites I linked to in turn supplied some sources, did you actually look at them or would that be inconsistent with your denialist beliefs?

bat said: Andrew you seem to be in a dellusional state as to Realclimatesâ€™ authority on the â€™scienceâ€™ behind global warming.

I’m afraid it looks a lot more like you’re the one with the reality problem. It takes a peculiar form of heroic disregard for the facts to dismiss a whole body of science the way you do. But that’s life. You’ve chosen irrelevance. The rest of us will get on with trying to sort things out.

In 2005, the editors of Scientific American recognized RealClimate with a Science and Technology Web Award, writing:[4]

A refreshing antidote to the political and economic slants that commonly color and distort news coverage of topics like the greenhouse effect, air quality, natural disasters and global warming, Real Climate is a focused, objective blog written by scientists for a brainy community that likes its climate commentary served hot. Always precise and timely, the site’s resident meteorologists, geoscientists and oceanographers sound off on all news climatological, from tropical glacial retreat to “doubts about the advent of spring.”
In 2006, Nature compiled a list of the 50 most popular blogs written by scientists, as measured by Technorati. RealClimate was number 3 on that list.[5]

Can’t say. You would be more qualified to draw a conclusion on his work. As for others supporting him and ignoring criticism of his work, that is not an isolated case on either side of the debate.

“I say Beck is a total fraud and if people continue to support his work then they are (a) too stupid to notice the gaping holes in the science or (b) they know all about it but are hoping to pull the wool or (c) both a and b.”

Many would suggest that in the above section that you could replace Beck with IPCC.

Beck in your opinion may indeed be wrong however do you support ‘all’ work represented from the other side ?

Why do you guys insist on using the word ‘deniers’ all the time. The majority of skeptics just disagree on what is causing climate change not that it is not happening. Just like the term the dishonest media loves to use, Holocaust denier, again a false term for sensationalism.

Doug, “What does Beck being wrong say about Energy and Environment?”

I think this is a dumb question. Depending on where you sit on this issue you could argue this about any publication. And this doesn’t only apply to Global Warming. Many respected, and non, publications publish articles, reports etc taking sides.

Andrew W, thanks for the links to the ‘denialists’. Had seen them already. You forgot to list thier ages though.

“Do you think astronomers and nuclear physicist are also part of the great swindle?”

Not all but where funding is invovled it can change a persons view. This happens a lot in many funded research areas. If you don’t play ball you may lose your funding. On the other hand some people can become arrogant in their profession and although they truly believe their own work they are also very reluctant to see any errors in it.

Andrew, as for your link about the 911 professors and your associated comment it is very telling of how conditioned you have become. Either you have not done your homework on that subject or you share a similar IQ to Dubya. While I’d really love to debate you on that topic, of course this is definitely not the place. :o(

Gareth, “It takes a peculiar form of heroic disregard for the facts to dismiss a whole body of science the way you do. But thatâ€™s life. Youâ€™ve chosen irrelevance.”

Funny you should post this under Andrews link to 911. Seems that you guys like to use this sort of arguement only when it suits. And no Gareth, I have not chosen irrelevance, I’ve chosen to look at the arguements presented on both sides and make up my own mind. Of course this as you know is an on going process.

Andrew W, “In 2005, the editors of Scientific American recognized RealClimate with a Science and Technology Web Award, writing:[4]”

So what ? That boosts their crediblity how ? The NIST whitewashed the science behind 911. My point, Scientific American may be just as biased as NIST.

“No doubt though there is nothing I or anyone else can say, and nothing you would read, that will change your opinion on Realclimate or AGW.”

I assume since you are unsure about the accuracy of Beck that your science background is weak. I also assume that you accept the whole CC issue is a matter of science. This raises the very interesting idea that you must therefore trust some of the science ideas more than other ideas.

If you are taking this on trust then, what makes you trust one set of ideas over another?

I mean no disrespect but I make a living teaching science to students with weak backgrounds who often come in with very, very wrong ideas that are sometimes quite easy to put right once a few things are explained. (Sort of like misheard lyrics to songs – once you tell someone the right words they wonder how they ever got it wrong).

Do you follow the basics of the Critic article section about Beck? Would you like me to explain in detail? If so, what level of science training do you have? (So I don’t start too hard or too easy)

If I were to show to your satisfaction that Beck is a fraud, would that change your views about
(a) the people who promote Beck ?
(b) e&e that published Beck ?
(c) other work published by e&e?

Nothing the IPCC says actually violates known laws of chemistry and physics. What Beck says does violate many known laws of chemistry and physics. Beck is not even wrong. Can you point to anything the IPCC says in reports that is actually impossible (not just – depending on your viewpoint, likely or unlikely)?

Oh, and if Bryan Leyland happens to read this:
Bryan, any word from Beck yet about the criticisms I made about his work? Did you follow the arguments against him? Do you still think there is even the slightest chance Beck might be right?

Doug, my understanding of science is probably average. I would say that CC is science and politics. I ‘trust’ whichever side is more convincing to me after having read article after article and so far you know who I bat for.

Doug, I know from your pov as a science teacher (nice mugshot by the way) and from your understanding of the science it may be all clear cut. I on the other hand look at the politcal side also. I have for the last 12 years been following ‘world politics’ and by doing so the world to me now is painted in a very different light.

Yes please do explain in detail about Beck.

“If I were to show to your satisfaction that Beck is a fraud, would that change your views about”

a) No, unless it could be proven that they were all in it to deliberately mislead. Using one of Andrew’s arguments, why would these people put their reputations on the line if they didn’t truly believe in the research ?

b) No, again, was it deliberate ? Do they believe in Becks’ work or are they just giving the skeptics a voice ?

c) No. I’m sure there are many media outlets that go with the mainstream on many occassions but not on others. Or even vice versa. I think one would have to be very close minded to dismiss all the work a scientist, researcher, etc does based on a small part of their work.

Beck may have this completely wrong. And while it would give one cause to err on the side of caution when looking at his other works, it does not count him or anyone else out altogether.

As a more extreme example. Say a scientist believes in God. Some may ask how this could be so when the existence of God cannot be scientifically proven. So the question is does this make him, as Gareth would say, a ‘crank’ and therefore negate the rest of his work due to his other beliefs ? Absolutely not.

“Nothing the IPCC says actually violates known laws of chemistry and physics.”

Climate change is science, the politics is in how we address it. The politics may affect our interpretation of the physics but it will never alter the effects of any given anthropogenic or natural forcing.

“I â€˜trustâ€™ whichever side is more convincing to me after having read article after article and so far you know who I bat for.”

Name me one or more claim by AGW denialists that you think hasn’t been answered.

“Why do you guys insist on using the word â€˜deniersâ€™ all the time.”

Fair point, while I say “denialist”, I’m thinking “AGW denialist”, the latter I think is an accurate description, to some degree I agree with you about Gareths use of the term “cranks”, I see these people as invariably having a political motivation, similarly I think people who believe in climate catastrophies that aren’t consistent with our understanding of the science are also being influenced by their politics, our political positions are a product of many factors, I think human instinct is the most basic driver, and I think people just don’t recognise how influenced they are by instinct, a product of evolution.
On the other hand, the ‘cranks’ just recycle the same disproved arguments again and again, something that can be very frustrating.

“Andrew, as for your link about the 911 professors and your associated comment it is very telling of how conditioned you have become. Either you have not done your homework on that subject or you share a similar IQ to Dubya. While Iâ€™d really love to debate you on that topic, of course this is definitely not the place. :o(”

Well, if you think 911 was not an attack launched by Osama & Co, there’s always this kiwiblog thread: